Emilio Bautista-Serrano v. Mary Mitchell , 465 F. App'x 289 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7281
EMILIO BAUTISTA-SERRANO,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MARY MITCHELL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (6:11-cv-01351-RBH)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emilio Bautista-Serrano, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emilio Bautista-Serrano appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 &
Supp. 2011) petition. The district court referred this case to
a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006).
The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Bautista-Serrano that failure to file timely objections
to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a
district court order based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a
magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the parties have been warned of the consequences of
noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Bautista-Serrano has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2